Iraqi Prime Minister endorses Obama's withdrawal timetable

[bascule]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566841,00.html

 

"So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat," Maliki told SPIEGEL. "But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias."

 

Mission accomplished? Time to go home? Well, McCain wants to stay there for another 100 years... Obama's approach seems to be making a lot more sense.

[Pangloss]

McCain does not want US troops to remain in combat in Iraq for another 100 years. He was talking about is the possibility of establishing permanent bases in Iraq but only with the support of the Iraqi government. We are not a colonial power.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/mccain.king/

 

"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."

 

McCain told King he thinks opponents are taking the quote out of context. He said any long-term troop presence in Iraq would depend on agreement from the Iraqi government.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Pangloss

[bascule]

Well, that said, this seems like a major victory for Obama. Here we have the leader of Iraq calling him out by name, saying his plan gets a seal of approval.

 

How's that for some foreign policy cred in the main area the current administration has failed miserably?

[doG]

Here we have the leader of Iraq calling him out by name, saying his plan gets a seal of approval.

 

How's that for some foreign policy cred in the main area the current administration has failed miserably?

 

And here we have that same Iraqi leader disputing this news report saying his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

[Pangloss]

Well I agree with bascule on that. The distancing mentioned above is about not wanting to influence a important ally's democratic election, which makes sense for a whole lot of reasons. From that same article:

 

"Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited," he said.

 

Put another way, he's not supporting Obama for president, but he is making it clear that he wants our troops out. And that's very much his (and his people's) prerogative. Frankly if that's what the Iraqi people want, then the very best thing that can be done to preserve Iraq-American friendship and cooperation is to remove our troops, and to do so along the lines of reasoning that Obama suggests. After all, they can always invite us to establish a base there later, if they change their minds and the opinion of the Iraqi people towards us improves, which seems quite possible to me -- their notion of a secular government and an only morally Islamic nation makes them a natural ally for the US (not to mention an excellent role model for their Shi'a brethren next door).

 

On the political front, Obama has scored a major point. McCain is now behind the 8-ball on this issue. And I think we've gone from a minor story about the administration's lack of control over al-Maliki to a major shift in the situation. One that requires the formation of new policy (departure).

 

That having been said, it is important to make sure that this is the sincere opinion of the Iraqi people, and not just the Shi'a. It is likely, for example, that the Kurds feel differently. But if the Sunni agree on this point, that would seem to spell the end of our notion of permanent bases, at least for the present time.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Pangloss

[iNow]

And here we have that same Iraqi leader disputing this news report saying his remarks "were misunderstood, mistranslated and not conveyed accurately."

 

Chances are very good that the Bush crew picked up the phone right quickly when they heard his comments and forced him to put out a "clarifying" statement.